If you control seeds, you control the food

FF

November 16, 2012|by Rita Brhel, P&D Correspondent

Baby cereal, taco shells, sugar: Each of these is derived from a major agricultural crop - rice, corn, sugar beets - and each has been entangled in the controversy of whether genetically modified (GM) foods are safe to eat. Whether or not this is a valid concern - research predominantly supports that GM food crops are benign - anything GM is consistently under fire for some breach of natural law.

One issue that is often overshadowed by food safety and pest resistance issues centers on seed sovereignty and the potential effect on biodiversity - specifically who has control of the world's seed supply and how much of it is GM.

"GM policies are directed toward making money for corporations and not about the farm and natural resources," said Dena Hoff, chairwoman of the Northern Plains Resource Council in Billings, Mont., vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based National Farm Family Coalition, and a diversified crop and livestock producer near Glendive, Mont. Hoff spoke at a recent virtual workgroup meeting of the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance.

Advertisement

While genetic science has been a key technology in greatly boosting yields and profits within the agricultural industry, and even some aspects of environmental health - for example, glyphosate-resistant crops was acclaimed at its introduction for allowing farmers to economically employ no-till or reduced-tillage into their operations, thus improving natural soil health - GM crops have their share of ecological concerns.

"One thing we hear often is, genetic engineering (GE) is no different than breeding when it's actually very different because it's injecting genes from a completely different species," said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network North America in Oakland, Ca. Seed sovereignty is about maintaining a pool of "pure" seeds, untouched by GM technology.

"Now, it's hard to find seeds not contaminated by GM crops," Hoff said. As much as 70 percent of the world's seed supply is owned by 10 companies, 27 percent of which is controlled by just Monsanto, whose stronghold extends from the United States to Africa. "So, it's not just local. It's everywhere," she added.

GM growers are often hostile to the issue of seed sovereignty, and understandably so, as it's one in a list of criticisms, but Hoff warns that there is a danger in that so much of the world's seed is controlled by so few entities. The lack of biodiversity is a conservation concern, as is the increasing monopolization is an economical concern. But what the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance aims to do is communicate the link between seed sovereignty and food security.

"If you control the seeds, you control the food," Ishii-Eiteman said. "Then, you can control people's livelihoods and even the culture."

It may sound more like a conspiracy theory, but if one corporation owns all of the seed corn, that company also controls where and how the crop is grown and used, which ultimately affects food access and the cost to the consumer. Caught in the middle would be the family farmer who would be unable to make a livelihood independent of that company. Globally, agriculture would essentially become vertically integrated.

There is a lot of discussion about seed sovereignty and how it intersects with food security in the organic and alternative agriculture sectors, but these talks lack a strong united front in the United States. Even though the local foods movement is spreading nationwide, the conversation is disjointed and both Hoff and Ishii-Eiteman would like to see it merged with the global movement.

"What do over 60 countries in the world, representing over half of the world's population, have in common?" Ishii-Eiteman asked. "A national requirement for mandatory GE food labeling."

The question is how to get the dialogue beyond the local farmers markets and backyard seed-saving gardeners to Congressional sessions and corporate Board meetings. Ishii-Eiteman says the responsibility lies in a grassroots movement. Consumers and farmers need to take a stand together.

Another challenge is in keeping the balance. GM crops are not "wrong," per se. They boost yield, which is good for farmers' bottom lines, and their food safety controversy is negligible when used for livestock feed or other non-human food uses. And there is apparent economic benefit to developing countries, as well as health benefits to famished populations.